Pages of interest

Friday, April 15, 2011

Examining our Social (in)Security.

By George:I recently received the interesting article included below, from a good friend who knows that I enjoy receiving interesting articles. I present it for your perusal and edification. I have not done any fact-checking on it, but I am sure that my readers will. (I am POSITIVE that Prosey will.) So I present to you... (Slightly edited for readability.)

********** Start of Email **********History Lesson On Your Social Security CardDick KantenbergerGifted Education WriterExaminer.comJust in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" was removed.Our Social SecurityFranklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.He promised:1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,-- No longer Voluntary2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,-- Now 7.65% on the first $90,000.3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,-- No longer tax deductible.4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and....-- Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent.5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.-- Under Clinton & Gore, up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed.Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away', you may be interested in the following Q & A:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democrat Party.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -AND MY FAVORITE:Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!And the worst part about it is that uninformed citizens believe it!If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve.It's certainly worth a try.How many people can YOU send this to?Actions speak louder than bumper stickers********** End of Email **********

Lori, this info should be right up your alley, so what do you think?Any comments from my vastly knowledgeable readership is welcome.

Let me put your mind to rest. When I said that I didn't fact check this article, it doesn't mean that it wasn't checked. When I don't have the time to check it personally, I rely enough on the friend who sent it to me, to publish it, but I still like to have other independent verification.

I will NOT publish outlandish claims, and believe me, I get enough of those kinds of emails to fill many blogs.

So, Mr. Anonymous, are you disputing the facts stated, or just venting?

To add to the confusion, let me say that I did not write the article. I saw it some months ago in an email I received and passed it to several friends for comments. I do not know who decided to make me the author. About a month ago I started received emails by the dozens asking about the article.